I changed the order of the sections a little bit since it seems like "History and Influence" and "Criticism" should go together. I think we have to be careful here. Certainly the main text of the article is not the place to showcase inflamatory rumors. (Did you put that in, dear Reader, and then take it out? Do you realize that this would be a very personal and specific attack on a very dear and holy priest who would be deeply troubled by such an eventuality?) I do think a criticism section, if well done, is very appropriate since this has been - for good or bad (maybe good and bad!) a constant issue of discussion vis a vis St. Vlad's in Orthodox Church life.

+

I changed the order of the sections a little bit since it seems like "History and Influence" and "Criticism" should go together. I think we have to be careful here. Certainly the main text of the article is not the place to showcase inflamatory rumors. I do think a criticism section, if well done, is very appropriate since this has been - for good or bad (maybe good and bad!) a constant issue of discussion vis a vis St. Vlad's in Orthodox Church life.

I'm not sure that what's there now really works. Certainly this objection -- probably the most frequent one I've heard -- is worth a mention, but I'm sure you'd find more nuance among the faculty than you imagine. More to the point, IMHO this is not characteristic of what St. Vladimir's stands for in the larger context of church life.

I'm not sure that what's there now really works. Certainly this objection -- probably the most frequent one I've heard -- is worth a mention, but I'm sure you'd find more nuance among the faculty than you imagine. More to the point, IMHO this is not characteristic of what St. Vladimir's stands for in the larger context of church life.

Line 9:

Line 9:

[[User:FrJohn|Fr. John]] 21:15, 20 Mar 2005 (CST)

[[User:FrJohn|Fr. John]] 21:15, 20 Mar 2005 (CST)

−

−

: Regarding the bit about women being taught to use a censer&mdash;it was information I received from someone who'd received it from someone who witnessed it in class. But given that I didn't talk to the eyewitness and that I talked to a couple of current students who said this wasn't occurring, I removed that information. I don't know who the holy priest is that you reference. :/ --[[User:ASDamick|Rdr. Andrew]] 19:38, 25 Mar 2005 (CST)

Latest revision as of 06:26, March 26, 2005

Criticism of SVS

I changed the order of the sections a little bit since it seems like "History and Influence" and "Criticism" should go together. I think we have to be careful here. Certainly the main text of the article is not the place to showcase inflamatory rumors. I do think a criticism section, if well done, is very appropriate since this has been - for good or bad (maybe good and bad!) a constant issue of discussion vis a vis St. Vlad's in Orthodox Church life.

I'm not sure that what's there now really works. Certainly this objection -- probably the most frequent one I've heard -- is worth a mention, but I'm sure you'd find more nuance among the faculty than you imagine. More to the point, IMHO this is not characteristic of what St. Vladimir's stands for in the larger context of church life.

The Schmemannite liturgical reforms - which have had a huge impact on church life in this country and abroad (e.g. the Anaphora being read aloud) would, it seems to me, make a good focus or beginning for discussion about the influence SVS has had as well as the criticism it has engendered.

Perhaps these "Schmemannite" reforms do have something significant in common with at least "lower" biblical criticism -- both reject a simple adherence to the "received tradition" and endorse a certain qualified use of reason (e.g. historical criticism) for the purpose of achieving a greater fidelity to the Tradition of the Church (with a big 'T'), and attempting to live out that Tradition in as full a manner as possible in our contemporary circumstance.